Grinds/Private schools - your opinion

newgrange

Actually the only 'public' schools in this country are the VEC schools and Community Colleges (possibly the Comprehensives - I'm not sure of their management structure). All the brothers and convent schools, fee-paying or not, are privately-owned. They can reject students they do not feel are suited to their school. This may be on the basis of ability. If I run a school where I restrict entry to those capable of good marks in an exam, should I be surprised when they do? Should I claim it makes my school a 'better' school, when I made sure I did not take in the students who might get poor results?

Many people are experts on what they think is the case in other schools. For example, in terms of funding per student and equipment grants, VEC schools are much better funded than voluntary secondary/private schools. They also have smaller classes and much more specialist help available.

They are also the only real progressive force in Irish education. All the PLC courses - who started them? Not private and voluntary secondary schools - they all began in VEC schools. It is ironic that students for whom 'the Tech.' is not good enough when they are 12, come flocking to it when they are 18.

Traditionally in Dublin, 'the Tech.' became (following the introduction of free education in the 1960s) the place where those who could not get into the brothers and convents schols (which were perceived to be 'better') went. Prior to this, the VEC schools were where those who wanted a career in engineering etc. went, as they then went on to places like Kevin Street. Outside Dublin, where the vocational school might be the only school in the town, this type of snobbery did not develop.

A school is a school is a school. If you are bright, well-motivated, supported by your parents and have no real social pressures to leave school, you will do well wherever you are. Similarly the Institute or similar, no matter how much money is spent will not be able to get a child reading at under 10 to pass a Leaving Cert. They are suited to bright children without learning problems. Their staff do not have the experience to help such a child. They take in bright kids, or kids determined to work hard and do well and they get good results, it's not a mystery.

It doesn't mean private schools are better or worse - just different. If people have the money to pay for them, that is their right, but there are no statistics anywhere to say they are 'better' than other schools, on any level.

randomfella

Kate_17 wrote:

I'm with defiantshrimp here. I've heard quotes like this loads of times and it drives me nuts - people saying "grind schools should be closed down because people who can't pay don't have the chance to go" - utter nonsense. You can pay for great educational standards which is fine by me... I would do it for my own children in the future if I felt I needed to. But you can do equally as well in state schools if you work and have good teachers. You can be super-rich and attend any grind school, but it doesn't mean you'll come out with points for medicine just like that - you have to be bright and work.

The quote in italics is not what i said so don't apply this to me. THe point i'm making is that if you put the same person who works hard in a public school and then put him/her in a private school, he/she will get better results 99% of the time than working hard in the public school. I can't believe you couldn't grasp the concept of my BASIC point. Just look at league tables the facts are there.
You said you got 600? I say no more.

randomfella

defiantshrimp wrote:

Again that is absolute bull. It is perfectly possible to have a good social life and get 600 points. I myself got 590 thus making me one of "these people” and I worked considerably less than most of my friends who were disappointed on results day. The difference was I worked consistently through 6th year and had a goal so I didn’t have to freak out when the mocks or whatever hit. I didn’t have to study most weekends until March or so. I also know rugby players in my school who were on the senior team that managed around 500 points despite the training they had to do almost all year. To get 600 points you do probably need to be quite bright but that doesn’t mean you won’t have a social life by any means. I agree with Beau you do sound like a dude who is mad jealous.

Ok extra-cirricular activities - sport is one thing, something important to keep up but it doesn't end there. I mean spending time just not studying and relaxing. Hanging out, having a kick about, cinema, golf or whatever your into. Not admitting that you miss out on these to SOME extent when u get 600 is a lie and kick in the balls to people who worked hard to get less.

I can only go on personal experience of a public school and let me tell you for sure that people who get overe 550 have no lives for that year. Trust me. For ****s sake i know people who got 450 and never came out after March.
I admire a person pushing themselves to the limit to study and do so well so i'm not mad jealous as i already said who wouldn't be jealous of 600? I'm jealous of the result not the person and the work they put in. The reason why i asked "do you think people who get 600 have no lives for that year or two?" is because i've heard ppl like yourselves say that you have before, which i find to be completly untrue from my experience.

defiantshrimp

randomfella wrote:

THe point i'm making is that if you put the same person who works hard in a public school and then put him/her in a private school, he/she will get better results 99% of the time than working hard in the public school.

I'm sorry I must have missed that study. Where would I be able to read it? Leave the made up statistics where they belong, in your head. That is plain not true. A teacher can only give you material and inspire you. And since the LC is a set, well defined curriculum with a bit of self imitative and motivation you should get everything you need regardless of the quality of your teacher. And again you are assuming the teachers in private schools are better which probably isn’t the case in this country. A dedicated student will do well in any setting. Saying they “will get better results 99% of the time than working hard in the public school” is rubbish. It is the student who has to work for good grades not the teacher.

randomfella wrote:

Just look at league tables the facts are there.

We don't have league tables in this country, we have dodgy lists complied by the papers showing the amount of students going to certain 3rd level institutions and what schools they come from. Not a breakdown of LC scores, not an average points from each school, not an indication of the quality of teachers, nothing. Those tables neglect the fact that not everyone doing the LC in a school wants to go to college. The institute and other grind schools will look better because everyone there DOES want to go to college. Similarly in some private schools the same will apply. Also these “league tables” neglect to take into account the socio-economic make up of the pupils in the schools. For example those coming from a family where both parents and a sibling or two are graduates will be much more likely to go to 3rd level themselves. It is a much more difficult thing being the 1st in your family to go and quite possibly it may not be affordable to go to 3rd level depending on your background. All of these things heavily influence these “league tables” and have nothing to do with academic standards. Finally even then do the “league tables” show that a lot of public schools have a higher percentage of pupils going to so called “elite” universities than private ones. Especially when you compare private schools in one area with public schools in the same area.

Beau

randomfella wrote:

I say no more.

Then why continue.

randomfella wrote:

Not admitting that you miss out on these to SOME extent when u get 600 is a lie and kick in the balls to people who worked hard to get less.

Why is it a kick in the balls? Good on them.

randomfella wrote:

I can only go on personal experience of a public school and let me tell you for sure that people who get overe 550 have no lives for that year. Trust me.

Man we all know thats not true. Sure some will do that beacuse maybe they have to themseleves to get the points they need but whats the problem with that anyway? and what has that got to do with grind schools?

randomfella wrote:

I admire a person pushing themselves to the limit to study and do so well so i'm not mad jealous as i already said who wouldn't be jealous of 600?

eh...right

Kate_17

randomfella wrote:

The quote in italics is not what i said so don't apply this to me. THe point i'm making is that if you put the same person who works hard in a public school and then put him/her in a private school, he/she will get better results 99% of the time than working hard in the public school. I can't believe you couldn't grasp the concept of my BASIC point. Just look at league tables the facts are there.
You said you got 600? I say no more.

I wasn't attributing that quote to you so sorry if you took offence. I just meant it as a general example from what I have heard various people say.

League tables... this is a tricky one. Institute sends more pupils than any other school to uni... that's a good thing and I am not doubting that it is an excellent school. I would send my own children there if I thought it was necessary. To clarify - what I am saying is I think grind schools are a good idea and benefit many students, but you can do as well in public school if you work and have good teachers.... not sure would 99% of students do better in the grind schools. However they can be great cos teachers are consistently excellent, disruption is minimal and students are often older when doing LC, maybe repeating. If you have right attitude you can do fantastic in them. League tables are not always reliable... if we went by them per se, the best school in Donegal is Carrick VC, which is certainly not the case or anywhere near it.

As for the no life thing... I still had a life and allowed myself relaxation, although I will admit that it was less than in previous years. I know people who worked very hard this year, did well, very well, yet still had lives. Although it wasn't going out every weekend before exams.

randomfella

I meant by League Tables - those who go to certain colleges/universities etc and you knew that so stop trying to make it out as if i'm pulling facts from nowhere. Everybody knows that the majority of people by far who score highly in their leaving cert go to college. Thats why there is credibility in the tables. They don't want to release league tables, because if they do everybody will see the private schools/grind schools at the top. Thus endorsing these schools. So people who go to these schools have an unfair advantage over people who can't afford it (and yea i know about the scholarship thing, but don't u have to be smart already for that?). Then people won't go to certain schools because they think they might'nt do aswel there. That is the whole problem.

Personally i'd be in favour of releasing league tables. What do you think?

Beau, you are disagreeing with me for the sake of it. I'm not bothering with u.

newgrange

League tables would be a little more informative if we could also see what level of achievement the students in a school had on entry, and what students that school rejected and why. Without that, they're not showing the whole story, and are worse than useless as they are misleading.

You have to be able to compare like with like.

defiantshrimp

I agree with randomfella there should be league tables. We should have some measure of how a school is academically developing its students over the 5/6 years they are there. They should also give school management much more power to remove poor teachers and reward good ones. However both those things require the teachers unions to be taken on and the powers that be will never ever do that. Our precious education minister wouldn't want to "rock the boat"...

Beau

Yeh definatley we should have proper league tables rather than the poor ones we have now.

Rondomfella you were wreaking my head, you kept going over the same argument.

Kate_17

I agree with league tables as long as they are detailed.. not like those that are currently printed in the papers. They should show detailed info on results and actual no's that went to college compared with total numbers and where, not just percentages for example... and I agree that there should be powers to deal with those teachers not doing their job properly.

randomfella

I think if league tables were introduced it would force some teachers to take more pride in their job and force them to achieve better results through their students. Often i find if the teacher is pissed off by the odd guy in the class, they start not to give a **** about the rest. They are confident of retaining their job no matter how low the results go.

There must be downsides to league tables too.

Scarinae

randomfella wrote:

i know about the scholarship thing, but don't u have to be smart already for that?

Well yeah I guess, but I stuck that into the point I was making so that nobody would assume I was a spoiled Daddy's girl who didn't work for six years and wasted my parents' money. I think if they are going to release league tables they should be better than the current ones the papers compile - telling you how many students from each school go to a college doesn't tell you much that's useful. It doesn't tell you what course they are doing, whether or not they actually stick with it until the end, and it completely ignores people who go abroad to universities in Britain or the USA or whatever. Feel free to correct me on this, but don't league tables also ignore students who go to the ITs? What's wrong with going to an IT if the course you want to do is in one?

randomfella

Yeah i agree with u Fishie. If they do make league tables, they should be comprehensive including all details except names of students. For instance you can see where the average geography mark in a certain school compared to the national average, and how many students took it at ordinary level etc.

newgrange

Fishie wrote:

What's wrong with going to an IT if the course you want to do is in one?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. It shows a maturity that some lack in the rush to 'high points' courses "because I will get the points". Nor is there anything wrong with choosing to go straight to work and not go to college at all.
People in the real world know this.

Scarinae

newgrange wrote:

It shows a maturity that some lack in the rush to 'high points' courses "because I will get the points".

In fairness, I think a lot of people who go for the high courses 'because they can get the points' are pushed into it by their relations and their teachers. It can be very difficult to resist them as well. For the last three years various people have tried coaxing me into going for medicine, without even considering the fact that I would have hated it. I have the utmost respect for doctors and everything, but it just isn't me - I hate blood, vomit, phlegm etc and I do not want to spend my life treating diseases because to be quite honest the idea of it grosses me out. But when I was in transition year my guidance counsellor took one look at my DAT scores, noted that I was good at science subjects and decided that I should do medicine. Ignoring my protests, she printed out information on medical courses in all the Irish universities and various British ones and started telling me about what a wonderful career I would have. In fifth year she got worse so I switched guidance counsellors to avoid her, and luckily my new one accepted that there was no way in hell I was going to apply for medicine. But that's the way that particular guidance counsellor is - if you could get high points and like science, she tries to get you into medicine; if you resist, she suggests pharmacy or engineering. If you could get high points and don't like science she tries pushing you into law. It is absolutely ridiculous. I was lucky that my parents are quite easygoing and wanted me to go for whatever I wanted - and they fully supported me in not wanting to do any of the high-points courses. However, there are many people whose parents are ambitious for ther kids but don't understand the points system - this is a dangerous combination, because some parents assume that if a course has high points then it is somehow 'better'. People like my old guidance counsellor are making life difficult for people who actually really want to do medicine or pharmacy or whatever, because they are taking advantage of students who are not quite sure where they want to end up and are pushing them into courses that look good for the school. Maybe I am a cynic, but I really think that guidance counsellors should know better than this

newgrange

Unfortunately, I think your experience of guidance counselling wouldn't be unique.

I went to school a million years ago, and there was a girl in our year who was really very bright and was heading for a huge number of points. All she wanted to do was Marketing, which was a very new course in the College of Marketing and Design (DIT now) - and I think to do it at the time needed one honour at honours level - possibly two.

The fight that girl had to put up with the careers teacher who wanted her to do medicine.... Luckily, like you, she had parents who wanted her to be happy and to do what she wanted to do, not what she was 'able' for. So, she went into Marketing. She was easily the highest qualified in her class, and had outstanding results all the way through college, was head-hunted by a top Irish company, and followed on with a Masters and other post-graduate work. She is now lecturing in Scotland. It was her dream job, and she got it, despite the efforts of so-called career guidance people.

It makes such a difference to end up in a job you like, rather than one you were 'able' for, regardless of the pay involved. The sooner we start to value other abilities apart from academic, the sooner we might get people happier in, and more suited to their courses/careers/jobs.

killermonkey

my god i thought our guidance counsellor was the only one! ive wantd to do medicine for about 4 years now and luckily i was able to accept the cao offer the other day, but one thing which is really worrying me is the kind of ppl who will be in my class next year. there are at least 3 ppl in my year who were convinced by our guidance counsellor (and in one case parents too) that they should do medicine cos they will have the points. its absolutely ridiculous. one of them is a friend of mine and he'll be in my class next year and he doesnt even know what a career in medicine will entail. im sorry to break it to everyone, but 99% of guidance counsellors got to their job through an arts degree, and while theres nothing at all wrong with that, i hardly think that their view of college and the reality of studying something like medicine is crystal clear. certainly in my friends case, he was told to go for med cos he was likely to get 600 (he did) and he shouldn't "sell himself short". this is what really makes me mad, is the fact that med is 590 in trinity this year, and its purely because ppl like this are tricked into believing that high points in the leaving cert makes you magically suitable for a high-points degree. admittedly a lot of them are idiots themselves anyway, and their ambition to succeed in the leaving cert is carried forward to an ambition to impress ppl by saying 'im doing medicine', but when u have parents and especially guidance counsellors - who REALLY should know better - trying to encourage this idiotic way of thinking its just so much worse. dont these ppl realise that u need ppl skills to deal with patients? and why the hell not undergo some kind of work experience if youre going for a career in medicine? ive met a lot of ppl who say they want to become doctors, but very few of whom can justify their claim. the leaving cert is a test of how well u can learn things from a book, and regurgitate it on paper. college and the profession for which u prepare yourself, is about how u can apply yourself to a huge amount of learning material, and what u can retain by independent learning. ppl just dont get it and i cant understand why. ANYWAY....!!! as for the whole public shool/grind school thingy, i went to a private school and loved it, and see nothing wrong with it. i would never encourage anyone to go to a grind school however. for one thing the atmosphere in those places is completely destructive, as the emphasis is solely on academic achievement with a view to advertise any successes just to attract more customers. i did an extra subject in one of those schools for the LC and although the standard of teaching was excellent, the overuse of 'predictions' was unsettling and i just felt the whole staying in on a friday night until 10.30 to study IN SCHOOL was pathetic. i did very well in the exams without that kind of work, and i think most ppl can afford to take a rest for one evening after a long hard week of learning? theyre not schools, theyre just buildings where classes go on - theyre totally impersonal and i think especially those who send their children to schools like bruce for junior cert (and especially those who are enrolled from first year onwards) are insane. god this was an angry post! anyone out there likeminded?

RacoonQueen

I went to a public school for my Junior Cert and a private school for my Leaving...strongly recommend sticking with the public schools, standard of teaching is much higher. Public schools also seem to monitor your progress/lack of progress more.

dublinguy2004

If you want a qualification; go to a grinds school. For an education, go to a normal school.

Of course the benifits of grinds schools are there to be seen and are great if you have the money. Of course no matter how fair one tries to make education, the privilidged will always have the advantage.

Nowadays, going to universities (even Trinity) is not that exclusive; the real elite are sending their sons/daughters further afield to places like Oxbridge/Ivy League/top european universities that rank far higher than the best Ireland can provide (and indeed cost a hell of a lot more).

So the points race is just a little rat race and people miss the fact that Irish universities are pretty dull. The correlation between intelligence and 600 pointers is debatable, but I think that it's a pretty good indicator of

i) intellegence
ii) committment and work-ethic
iii) ability to work under pressure
iv) suitability for academia

all of which are desirable qualities in prospective students/employees.

Dave!

dublinguy2004 wrote:

If you want a qualification; go to a grinds school. For an education, go to a normal school.

I'm not sure I agree with that... Public schools still have to teach a curriculum as opposed to a subject, and they still have the responsibility of ensuring that their students get good results, so they have to teach exam techniques as well. The teachers may want to teach their own way, which may indeed be better, but unfortunately, they have a job to do also. It's a shame that the sole purpose of education in Ireland is to enable a student to do good in an exam, and not to teach them about the subject, or arouse interest in it.

Funkstard

From my experience grind school just work the system and focus on getting 600 points, not getting a good education and being able to do well because of yout education. If that makes any sense...

Scarinae

killermonkey wrote:

he was told to go for med cos he was likely to get 600 (he did) and he shouldn't "sell himself short"

ARRRGGGHHH!!! That was the same kind of thing that I was being told! It must be so annoying for people who wanted to do Medicine but "only" got 565 or something, knowing that lots of the places are being taken up by people who don't really have that much interest in doing the course. Congratulations on getting in though, which college are you doing it in?

angeldelight

Since the end of third year, Pharmacy was all I wanted to do. By the end of fifth year I basically knew I'd be able to get the points and I was doing physics, chemistry and biology. For all of sixth year, I had to listen to people saying "why don't you do medicine?" "I really think you should do medicine" "you can get into medicine, so why are you doing pharmacy". It was the most frustrating thing ever. My parents knew how much I was set on Pharmacy and was completely and utterly uninterested in medicine so they weren't like that but everybody else was. The most annoying was someone I was going out with just wouldn't drop it, I explained to him at least 20 times "I want to do pharmacy, I want to be a pharmacist" etc etc but his dad was a doctor and he just wouldn't stop going on about how I should do medicine. I wanted to murder him. Yes, I did the LC and got enough points for medicine, but I had Pharmacy as my first choice, accepted my place and I can't emphasise how much I love the course. I'm happier this year than I have ever been, and still I've had a few people saying "oh so you didn't get medicine??". It wasn't even on my cao but large number of people can't comprehend that.

Ruskie4Rent

Should've done medicine.

killermonkey

staying in cork... woulda loved to move away but hard to justify 7000euro a year when theres a university on your doorstep! how bout yourself? course/college. btw just how much is the "tute" per year, considering all those revision courses down this end of the country are so ridiculously overpriced, anyone know? free education for all....indeed....

d4gurl

angeldelight wrote:

Since the end of third year, Pharmacy was all I wanted to do. By the end of fifth year I basically knew I'd be able to get the points and I was doing physics, chemistry and biology. For all of sixth year, I had to listen to people saying "why don't you do medicine?" "I really think you should do medicine" "you can get into medicine, so why are you doing pharmacy". It was the most frustrating thing ever. My parents knew how much I was set on Pharmacy and was completely and utterly uninterested in medicine so they weren't like that but everybody else was. The most annoying was someone I was going out with just wouldn't drop it, I explained to him at least 20 times "I want to do pharmacy, I want to be a pharmacist" etc etc but his dad was a doctor and he just wouldn't stop going on about how I should do medicine. I wanted to murder him. Yes, I did the LC and got enough points for medicine, but I had Pharmacy as my first choice, accepted my place and I can't emphasise how much I love the course. I'm happier this year than I have ever been, and still I've had a few people saying "oh so you didn't get medicine??". It wasn't even on my cao but large number of people can't comprehend that.

Omg! I know exactly how you feel!! I really have had my mind set on Pharmacy for the last five years! I hate when stupid people just come up to you and go "but why do you want to do pharmacy, medicine is so much better"! and blah blah!! Its so frustratings!! Well done for getting your points and all! Im going to definitly have pharmacy number one on my cao!! Medicine shmedicine!lol!

AndyWarhol

d4gurl wrote:

Omg! I know exactly how you feel!! I really have had my mind set on Pharmacy for the last five years! I hate when stupid people just come up to you and go "but why do you want to do pharmacy, medicine is so much better"! and blah blah!! Its so frustratings!! Well done for getting your points and all! Im going to definitly have pharmacy number one on my cao!! Medicine shmedicine!lol!

Whilst there are people who are in theri course because they like it and want to be there, there's no denying that courses like Pharmace, Science, Physiotherapy, Theraputic Radiography, Medicinal Chemistry et. al. are full of 550ites who are bitter cos they didn't get in to medicine. They sign up thinking they can 'transfer after a year' which is complete bollox. They then go on thinking they can go back and do medicine once they graduate; again rubbish. I know one guy who did a chemistry degree, and a masters degree, applied to every medicine school in Ireland and got refused and is now going back to do his LC again at the tender age of 25...

The amount of CAO snobbery out there is unbelieveable. I'm an engineer so never really had to worry about points which was great. Could have done med, but you've to work too hard!

punka

dublinguy2004 wrote:

Nowadays, going to universities (even Trinity) is not that exclusive; the real elite are sending their sons/daughters further afield to places like Oxbridge/Ivy League/top european universities that rank far higher than the best Ireland can provide (and indeed cost a hell of a lot more).

point: nobody gets into Oxbridge because their parents have money. ditto the Ivy League. At least not Irish students, which is the point you're making. I know a number of Irish undergraduates at Oxford and Cambridge and none of them could be said to be from an "elite" or upper-class background.
(Though I do take your point that Ivy League universities cost more, they're still bloody difficult to get into unless your parents went there.)

edit:

AndyWarhol wrote:

Whilst there are people who are in theri course because they like it and want to be there, there's no denying that courses like Pharmace, Science, Physiotherapy, Theraputic Radiography, Medicinal Chemistry et. al. are full of 550ites who are bitter cos they didn't get in to medicine. They sign up thinking they can 'transfer after a year' which is complete bollox. They then go on thinking they can go back and do medicine once they graduate; again rubbish. I know one guy who did a chemistry degree, and a masters degree, applied to every medicine school in Ireland and got refused and is now going back to do his LC again at the tender age of 25...

The amount of CAO snobbery out there is unbelieveable. I'm an engineer so never really had to worry about points which was great. Could have done med, but you've to work too hard!

deja vu; AndyWarhol = ZigBee?

RacoonQueen

killermonkey wrote:

staying in cork... woulda loved to move away but hard to justify 7000euro a year when theres a university on your doorstep! how bout yourself? course/college. btw just how much is the "tute" per year, considering all those revision courses down this end of the country are so ridiculously overpriced, anyone know? free education for all....indeed....

5,650 for the tute and somewhere close enough to that for Ashfield.